05-11-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO COUNCIL HEARING ON SEALCOATING, MAY 11, 1983 -3- FINANCING - Continued QUESTIONS James Tobin, ,A180• Irvin Ct. N. Q. Mentioned earlier that monies had been bubgeted in the past - why can't this continue - more streets, but more people living in the City and more money coming in. A. Many developments are not full, but, all the street improvements are in and are being used - many are through streets. Reitterated causes of deterioration. Filling cracks that just keep coming back defeats the purpose. A City has to weigh the cost of not filling cracks and not sealcoating against the consequences of doing nothing to the streets. Believe have to have a sealcoat/maintenance program for street lo4gevity. Filling and sealcoating reduces the amount of water that gets under the pavement and causes damage. Re crack filling - new materials continually being developed, Ben Friedrich, 11269 31st St. Q. When will an assessment determination be made? A. At assessment hearing later in the summer. Assessment hearing on the 1983 Program will be held this summer with the 1984 Program hearing held next year, etc. Tom Armstrong, 8291 15th St, N. Q. Residents in other than the 1983 Program likely will not be at this years hearing. Important that policy adopted at the 1983 hearing is adhered to for succeeding years. City has to adopt an uniform assessment policy. Recommended adopting the Unit Method, Minimum Rate which provides for 20% of the cost to be assessed to affected property owners with an 80% ad valorem tax tgeneral property tax). Because one lives on a street should not beF).required to support the street(sI when all citizens use the street(s). Real question is how to handle this program in a way that is fair to all citizens, not just those living on a City street. I' A. Method proposed would cost 2 mills total or a 2% property tax increaze per individual. The ad valorum 'tax is also deductible, Charles Graves, 5227 Jerome Ct, N. Q. Suggested a combination unit and front foot method. Does not feel it is fair that individuals with small front foot lots should have to pay a share for. individuals with larger front "rootage. Use ad valorum tax to seperate costs out. Bruce Wylie, 409-1 Irvin Circle N. Q, Appears decision is already made - is it definite this is going to be done? How were costs determined? Who else has this program? A. Council has to decide whether to adopt a sealcoat program or not. Have%�to decide by Friday whether or not the City wants to participate in the County''s Seaicoat Program - savings to the City by joining the County program, Mahtomedi adopted a program like one suggested by Tom Armstrong, Cost estimates are based on previous bids for similar work in surrounding communities. estimate is based on the City contracting the work out - savings in joining County program. Bohrer added that the City's Maintenance Budget cannot keep up with the deterioration of the streets. Ben Friedrich, 11269 31st St. 0, Difficult to decide pro or con without knowing the amount,:of the assessment. Would favor unit assessment method over front foot, but do not want to be bleed to death,